Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by popper

its a bit of a messy one using that thread software, but i think i covered the point as most people will understand it, what do you think alexander? did i forget anything!

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._and_more.html

Seems fine popper, I would have perhaps indicated that using DPI to read your traffic data is still "processing" "personal and sensitive personal information" and therefore the IC has a duty to enforce DPA 1998 as well as PECR.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

I would love to be a fly at ICO and the Home Office at the moment. I expect they are very carefully trying to figure out how to approach the illegal trials of 2006/2007.

IC: "Well Kent, we have tried very hard to support your technology but the public backlash is unusually well informed on the legal issues revolving around this technology so we need to be seen as doing our job."

Kent: "Yes Richard I can understand that but as I have said, the laws were not designed to stop legitimate business activities."

HO: "The reason we have called you in today Kent is we need to find a method of damage reduction with regards to these trials you did in 2006/2007. Unfortunately this is going to be difficult given the news today that you trialled several hundreds of thousand of users in 2007; information based from your own corporate communications posted on your own website. If it was just the odd member of the public calling for action we could tie it up in red tape but with the likes of ORG and FIPR batting for the consumers and all the negative press from major publishers we just can't see a way out."

Kent: "Well I am not sure what to say there; clearly we had no knowledge that BT were going to use the technology in a manner which contravenes UK law, so I feel that your efforts should be concentrated on BT."

IC: "That is difficult as well, Patricia Hewitt is on the board of directors at BT so we have to try and keep the government happy on this and be careful not to introduce yet another scandal with regards government personnel and privacy issues."

Kent: "Well HO, it would seem that only your office can initiate proceedings under RIPA, surely you can just delay it long enough that people forget?"

HO & IC in unison: "We will see what we can do. At worst it is going to cost you a couple of million in fines, so we will find a suitable outcome in time."

Kent: "Can you issue a gag order on Alexander Hanff to stop him publishing his dissertation about the 2006/2007 trials?"

HO: "I'm sorry, I can't do that Kent. I will phone the chancellor at his University and see if they have any way to suppress the dissertation with academic red tape, but I can't promise anything."

Alexander Hanff

[diddy1]

cheered up an otherwise very dull day.

[jca111]

An interesting analogy between GM Crops and Phorm!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...eed=technology

[CaptJamieHunter]

So we have a government which, for reasons best known to itself isn't keen on investigating breaches of RIPA. Yet we have a local council quite happy to use RIPA to spy on people making school applications!

At the risk of getting political I have commented elsewhere about how this country is heading towards Gordongrad.

Here's a definition of a new word that has emerged from these particular events:

Inphorm: v, To state as facts views which are based on questionable interpretations of language. To amend already accepted factual articles, removing known facts as part of the amendment process.

Examples: "We have been inphormed that neutral opinion means yes." "I see the Phorm Wikipedia entry got inphormed the other day." "If you mention a company then you are inphorming people that you endorse it."

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Originally Posted by jca111

An interesting analogy between GM Crops and Phorm!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...eed=technology

What a pity Charles doesn't leave an option to make comments.

Where are the "exaggerated claims" from this forum and The Register? I believe along with many others that Phorm is illegal under RIPA and must be investigated. Nothing exaggerated there. I believe along with many others that BT and Phorm must be bought to book for the secret trials in 2006 and 2007 which broke the Data Protection Act, European Privacy Regulations and RIPA. Where is the exaggeration there? Phorm say they are confident they are legal and have QC opinion (from a hitherto unnamed QC) to confirm that.

Bring on the full legal investigation. Once the full legal investigation has taken its unhindered course I may revise my opinions. Until then I won't.

I believe that Phorm's PR offensive on the web has been based around spin, obstructive and manipulative language. That reflects poorly on a company which as we already know has a murky history. How you behave influences what people think of you. The Guardian's rejection was telling - Phorm didn't fit with their business values. An ethical, trustworthy organisation? Not what The Guardian think.

Charles hasn't defined what he thinks a proper opt-in (and thus an opt-out) would be. That suggests he's either misunderstood things or has just omitted to mention just why so many people are unhappy about Phorm.

MY DATA GOES NOWHERE NEAR PHORM'S SYTEMS

The battle is far from over. Until a full legal investigation happens and (ideally) Phorm are told they are illegal under RIPA this issue may well continue to rumble on.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

So we have a government which, for reasons best known to itself isn't keen on investigating breaches of RIPA. Yet we have a local council quite happy to use RIPA to spy on people making school applications!

At the risk of getting political I have commented elsewhere about how this country is heading towards Gordongrad.

I'm pleased you spotted the 'risk' -- Poole council is run by Conservatives (the 'law'n'order brigade) with support from privacy-loving LibDems. Not a single Gordongrad-ite in sight!

Let's keep party politics out of the discussions, eh?

Poole is a Unitary Council with 42 Councillors elected across 16 wards in the Borough. Elections take place every 4 years, the last local elections were in May 2007.
Poole's Council Leader is Councillor Brian Leverett who also leads the Cabinet. The Council is made up of 25 Conservative and 17 Liberal Democrat councillors.

(From the Borough of Poole website)

[manxminx]

Excellent Alexander! You forgot one thing though:

HO: "Someone fix me a large one, I have to report back to Jonathan".

(Phone rings)

MI5 receptionist: (silence)

HO: "Security code Beta Tango Virgin".

MI5 receptionist: "Transferring you to Johnathan Evans now sir".

(click) (click)

JE: "Good news I hope?"

HO: "Umm . . .'fraid not JE . . ."

[jca111]

Originally Posted by ceedee

I'm pleased you spotted the 'risk' -- Poole council is run by Conservatives (the 'law'n'order brigade) with support from privacy-loving LibDems. Not a single Gordongrad-ite in sight!

Let's keep party politics out of the discussions, eh?

Poole is a Unitary Council with 42 Councillors elected across 16 wards in the Borough. Elections take place every 4 years, the last local elections were in May 2007.
Poole's Council Leader is Councillor Brian Leverett who also leads the Cabinet. The Council is made up of 25 Conservative and 17 Liberal Democrat councillors.

(From the Borough of Poole website)

There is still a fundamental difference here. There are procedures that Poole council etc. can go through to do this. You may not like it, but that is the Law as it stands.

What Phorm is doing is not in my opinion legal, and thus very different!

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by jca111

There is still a fundamental difference here. There are procedures that Poole council etc. can go through to do this. You may not like it, but that is the Law as it stands.

What Phorm is doing is not in my opinion legal, and thus very different!

May I also add that RIPA does have its weaknesses - in this case allowing a local council employee (unelected, often unanswerable to the public) to use terrorist level surveillance on what seem to me to be non-terrorists.

Whether I like it or not due process was followed and the letter of the law obeyed. I haven't seen too much of that with Phorm and BT.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Let's keep party politics out of the discussions, eh?

Whilst I agree with this, we do have a government that seems to be sitting on it's hands over the Phorm issue. At best it's because it's waiting to see which way the wind blows with Joe public.

The government does not care what people like us think, we don't represent many votes (remember IR35?).

But there are local elections coming up and regardless of how people intend to vote, I hope when the activists start appearing on the doorstep, that they are told that action over Phorm will influence our vote.

[jca111]

Just got a reply from Virgin

interesting bits below:

Whilst Virgin Media has signed an agreement with Phorm to explore how their technology could be used......... ........we still have a lot of work to do in evaluating various aspects of any possible deployment and how our implementation might work.

So they HAVE signed an agreement with Phorm.

We can therefore say at this stage that a) there are absolutely no foregone conclusions; and b) customer concerns around privacy and data protection, not to mention any adverse impact on Virgin Media's reputation, are (and will remain) an important element in our deliberations.

and

In the event Virgin Media does roll out this solution, all customers will be notified well in advance of the service going live. Customers will not be forced to use the system, fully in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive)Regulations 2003.

Interesting!!!? First I've heard anything from Virgin since I complained weeks ago!

[AlexanderHanff]

Wow finally someone other than myself has included PECR s6 in relation to this service. Maybe I should start charging people like VM and ICO for using my paper to interpret PECR. Note how there is still no mention of PECR s8 and s27 though!

Alexander Hanff

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by jca111

Just got a reply from Virgin

interesting bits below:

Interesting!!!? First I've heard anything from Virgin since I complained weeks ago!

Sounds a lot like the statement read to me over the phone on Monday. Damn, I should have asked for that in writing! (I'll spare the TMI but I was just out of the shower).

[Florence]

Maybe because like me many have already moved the phone back to BT and moved BB away from VM. ~This move proved benificial for me since while with VM my connection was 4meg but I had requested it moved to the 2 for £20 which would give me 2 meg. I am now connected on 6meg on training period and looking like I will be 6.5meg or 7meg with more upload than I had with VM.

Saying that I would't stay with any ISP that deploys phorm or any system like phorm.

[AlexanderHanff]

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...152#post127152

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Nice one